Background to this inspection
Updated
11 December 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 15 November 2018 and was unannounced.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return [PIR]. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The provider returned the PIR and we took this into account when we made judgements in this report. We also reviewed other information that we held about the service such as notifications, which are events which happened in the service that the provider is required to tell us about, and information that had been sent to us by other agencies. This included the local authority who commissioned services from the provider.
The people using the service were not able to communicate verbally with us, but we were able to speak with relatives of two people using the service via phone, to gather their feedback. We also spoke with a support worker and the operational manager. We reviewed two people’s care records to ensure they were reflective of their needs and other documents relating to the management of the service such as quality audits, training records and complaints systems.
Updated
11 December 2018
We inspected this service on 15 October 2018. The inspection was un-announced.
Arden Croft provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people with learning disabilities and autism. On the day of our inspection four people were using the service.
Arden Croft is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the 'Registering the Right Support' and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At the last inspection in February 2016 this service was rated good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.
This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
A registered manager was in post, but was not available on the day of inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were safe. Risk assessments were in place to cover any risks present. We saw that staff had been appropriately recruited in to the service and security checks had taken place. There were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People received their prescribed medicines safely.
The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision, training and ongoing professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.
People’s relationships with staff were positive and caring. We saw that staff treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. People had detailed personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences.
The provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.
The service had a positive ethos and an open and honest culture. People and their family members were able to feedback about the service and any concerns identified were acted upon.